Monday, March 7, 2005

FORWARD STRATEGY OF FREEDOM

I have been thinking for some time on writing a post on the core problem with the "war on terrorism." Is Bush's "forward strategy of freedom" working, or is it missing the real target? [Editor's comment: Could you find Iran on the list? Why is a ban on human cloning included on the "fact sheet"?] Shouldn't the main concern be the protection of America and its allies in the Western world and the Middle East? Sarah Beth (Reclaim Your Brain) is saying that We're Winning. I am not sure that we have reached total victory yet, but I am positive about the new kind of domino theory taking place in today's world. [Editor's note: I have added Answers.com's GreenLinkTM to this post and their answer-box to the Resources section.] From my post, THE ORANGE / CHESTNUT REVOLUTION.

Will the election outcome have a positive "domino effect" on other states? Pete du Pont, Chairman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, says:

That a genuine democratic revolution is underway is clear from Mr. Yushchenko's approximate 16 point margin in Sunday's re-election, an enormous victory for freedom that may encourage Belarus, Moldova and other Russian subsidiary states to end their totalitarianism too. (OpinionJournal, 12/27/04.)

Robert Tracinski is showing us Why We're Winning in his article, Why the Enemies of Freedom Are Always Weak.

As with the collapse of Communism in the late 1980s, the answer is not that America pursued an overwhelmingly strong and unwavering foreign policy. President Bush's foreign policy, like President Reagan's, has frequently been strong in its rhetoric and it has certainly been stronger than what was demanded by critics on the left (who demanded unilateral disarmament against the Soviet threat in the 1980s and unilateral retreat from Iraq in 2004). But the Bush policy has not been nearly as strong, either in its rhetoric or in its execution, as it should have been. Readers will remember Bush's frequent declarations that Islam is a "religion of peace" and his refusal to name the Middle East's largest sponsor of terrorism, Iran, as our main enemy in this war. And those who have been reading TIA Daily from its launch will remember my despair at America's shameful surrender in Fallujah last April.

So given the many weaknesses of America's war strategy, the only reason we can be winning is that our enemy is much, much weaker. (TIADaily.com, 03/03/05.)

I have illustrated this post with Cox & Forkum's cartoon, Hydra. Read what John Cox and Allen Forkum have to say about the "war on terrorism" and their cartoon:

Forkum:"The first attempts to undermine America's resolve to wage war came from the (supposed) pacifists, who demanded that the attacks be treated as crime and not acts of war. This would have meant bringing justice merely to those directly involved, most of whom conveniently committed suicide in the attacks. This approach, like chopping off only one head of the mythical Hydra (facing page), would have left intact the source of the danger: terrorist-sponsoring states." (Black & White World, page 8.)

Cox:"In "Hydra," I wanted to show a strong Uncle Sam. Contemporary cartoons often show him as an ineffectual old man beaten down by conflicting feelings of guilt and power. But why not show Uncle Sam as a well-built, vibrant symbol of patriotic resolve and steadfast ideals? Why not show him as he ought to be? This Uncle Sam could easily defeat the Hydra - if only he chooses to." (Black & White World, page 8.)

Summary: President Bush gave an important, and generally excellent, speech on our foreign policy re the middle east. He reiterated, and further explained, his Forward Strategy of Freedom. (CapMag.com, 03/14/05.)